Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34720809›Full record

ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Patient Preferences: Results of a German Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis (Market Research Study Sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company) in Patients on Palliative Treatment for Advanced Breast Cancer.

Mattea Reinisch, Norbert Marschner, Thorsten Otto, Agnieszka Korfel, Clemens Stoffregen, Achim Wöckel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mattea ReinischInterdisziplinäres Brustzentrum/Senologie, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Norbert MarschnerPraxis für Interdisziplinäre Onkologie und Hämatologie, Freiburg, Germany.
Thorsten OttoLilly Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany.
Agnieszka KorfelLilly Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany.
Clemens StoffregenLilly Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany.
Achim WöckelKlinik für Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie, Universitätsklinik der Julius-Maximilians-Universität, Würzburg, Germany.
Eli Lilly (Germany) · DEKliniken Essen-Mitte · DEPraxis für Hämatologie und Onkologie · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntegration of patient preferences into shared decision making improves disease-related outcomes, but such data from patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC) are limited. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the relative importance of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in relation to quality of life (QoL) and therapy-associated side effects from the perspective of patients with aBC.

methodsPostmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative aBC receiving first- or second-line treatment were recruited throughout Germany. Patient-relevant attributes for aBC therapy assessment were collected using a stepwise multimodal approach. A conjoint matrix was developed, resulting in 2 attributes for therapy goals (OS and PFS), 4 for QoL, and 6 for side effects. An online quantitative survey was then performed using adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) methodology.

resultsThe quantitative survey included 104 patients: 67 (64.4%) receiving first-line treatment and 37 (35.6%) receiving second-line treatment. The QoL attribute "physical agility and mobility" received the highest utility score (19.4 of 100%), reflecting the greatest importance to patients, followed by treatment goals (OS [15.2%] and PFS [14.4%]). Therapy-related side effects were less important, with nausea/vomiting being the most important (9.3%), followed by infection (6.4%) and hair loss (5.0%). The McFadden pseudo

conclusionUsing ACBC analysis, it appears that QoL, OS, and PFS are most important to postmenopausal patients with aBC in relation to cancer treatment. Side effects seem to be less important if OS or PFS are prolonged and the QoL is maintained. Thus, QoL, OS, and PFS should be considered equally when making treatment decisions in aBC.

Indexed as

Advanced breast cancerConjoint analysisPatient preferencesSurvivalTreatment

Identifiers

PMID34720809
PMCPMC8543321
OpenAlexW3121127799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.